Opinion: Of presidents and dynasties

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

On NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ this morning, former President Bill Clinton was asked whether the world would view a President Hillary Clinton as the establishment of a Clinton dynasty to follow two Bushes as president. The former president suggested that being fair to his wife was more important than fears of political dynasties in an ostensibly democratic country.

‘I think the real question here is not whether she’s establishing a dynasty, but ...almost whether we should eliminate her because she happens to be my wife, if she is otherwise the person who would be the best president,’ Clinton said. ‘I don’t like it whenever anybody gets something they’re not entitled to just because of their families.’

Clinton claimed that he had long encouraged her to go into politics, and even suggested they not marry because she should pursue her own political career.

‘When we were going together in law school, I thought - I literally told her she shouldn’t marry me because she was more gifted than me at politics,’ he recalled. ‘She was the best person in our generation, and she should go home and do it. And she laughed and said she’d never run for office. She said, ‘I’m too hard-headed. Nobody’ll ever vote for me. I’ll find another way to serve.’ That’s how our life began.’

Not that Clinton was suggesting that there is a Clinton dynasty.

‘When we think of dynasties in historical circumstances, it’s King Louis I through 25, and you get it because of who your family is, not because of what your merits are. In her case, she clearly has established, after leaving the White House, a totally different career path than I ... did, from operating from a different political base, with a set of expertise areas ... that I didn’t bring to the White House, and for a very different time where the security issues are much more important.’

-- Joe Mathews

w